August 24, 2021 | Gregory Wrightstone
Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
Joe Biden’s plan to convert 50% of the U.S. vehicle fleet from internal combustion engines to electricity by 2050 to fight climate change ignores a serious danger in doing so. Recent events around the world reveal that fire catastrophes from electric vehicles (EVs) are not only possible, but increasingly likely. The fire risk of the lithium-ion batteries that these EVs rely on for power is well documented, as they have been known to spontaneously combust in the most inopportune times and places.
Just this week, General Motors announced a second recall of Chevrolet Bolt EVs and EUVs manufactured from 2019 to 2022 model years in order to fix a defect in two of the lithium-ion battery modules that have led to fires. This follows on the heels of a previous recall of 69,000 older vehicles that will replace all five of the battery modules. 0:48 / 48:375 seconds…
The GM announcement is just the latest in a string of recalls by EV manufacturers to attempt to fix defects that can lead to catastrophic fires related to lithium-ion batteries. Last year, Ford was forced to recall 20,000 hybrids and soon thereafter, BMW recalled 26,700 vehicles due to battery defects that could lead to fires.
Internal combustion engine vehicles can also catch fire, but those tend to be during accidents or while driving, not sitting passively in a home or parking garage, as can occur with EVs. In addition, fire crews can extinguish a gasoline or diesel-powered vehicle fire, but not so for EVs. EVs are nearly impossible to extinguish with water and need to normally be allowed to just burn out, which may take many hours.
Last year, a California couple awoke to a blaring car alarm and a burning house. The blaze had started in one of the two Tesla S vehicles in their garage and spread to the other. “If we had lived upstairs in this house, we’d be dead,” said Yogi Vindum, a retired mechanical engineer. According to Mr. Vindum, “Gasoline driven cars don’t catch fire in the garage when they’re sitting there. And that’s the difference,” he said.
The culprit in nearly all EV fire cases is the lithium-ion batteries that power them, and which burn with extraordinary ferocity. Adding to the fire and heat danger posed by these events is the extreme toxicity of the fumes generated. According to one study, these fumes may in some circumstances be a larger threat, especially in confined environments where people are presentAds by
Battery fires are not limited to passenger cars. A fire at a bus depot housing electric vehicles in Hanover, Germany, caused millions of euros in damage. Five e-buses and four other vehicles were destroyed, along with the building and charging station. In the Chinese city of Baise, four electric buseswent up in flames after one had ignited.
Large lithium batteries used as backup power supplies to wind turbines and solar panels have combusted as well. Fire crews took more than three days to extinguish a blaze at the 13-ton Tesla Big Battery in Victoria, Australia. Because ordinary fire suppression methods could not be used on the 300-megawatt power source, crews had to let the blaze burn itself out as authorities monitored air quality in the vicinity.
A truly nightmare scenario is one in which an EV fire occurs in an underground parking garage beneath an apartment complex or a crowded office building. With the toxic fumes generated, how would the local fire department be able to respond to a fire that could not be extinguished even if they could get to it?
We should be forward-thinking in the prevention of a looming tragedy and consider doing what two towns in Bavaria did after the horrific German bus station inferno: completely ban all-electric vehicles from parking in underground garages. Electric vehicles may one day be safe enough to assume no fire risk in vulnerable garages, but that day has yet to arrive.
Gregory Wrightstone is executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and author of “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.”
We live on an island and have a one hour and fifteen minute ride to the mainland. Cars are mostly in enclosed decks, packed together. An electric car fire would be utterly catastrophic.
Carry inflatable vests on every trip.
Lithium ion batteries have been undergoing engineering development for submarines for many years. One solution appears to be a battery management system that reacts to thermal runaway by cutting the failed cell out of the battery. Each cell of the battery is housed in a honeycomb arrangement that acts as a heat sink to dissipate the heat from the exothermic reaction. This may be a solution for cars but it will do nothing to reduce the cost of the EV.
The US lost it’s one and only lithium ion powered submarine to a battery fire. They never even tried to build another. And they scrapped the hull. It was in the 2000’s . It was a small scale submarine that I believe was supposed to be a technology demonstrator.
I don’t know what started it. I think a welding spark started the battery on fire. The hull was de-tempered. The fire burned
for days. Edit. This was a Navy project.
The USN certainly have a set against Lithium-ion batteries. I thought it was due to an accident o a special forces surface craft. The Japanese have pushed on with Lithium batteries in submarines. A German experiment “Planet Solar”successfully circumnavigated the world with a replicaa lithium ion submarine battery without any incidents.Tûranor PlanetSolar – Wikipedia
And WUWT picks another cherry. I note the article does not record the number of fires per 1,000 kilometers. Why, you may ask? Because by that criteria, electric vehicles are eleven times LESS likely to have a fire. Not too surprising if you think about what an ICE engine does- i.e. explode a highly volatile and flammable liquid inside a cylinder, lubricated by another flammable liquid to move.
“citing data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation.”
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1133254_fires-are-less-frequent-in-teslas-and-other-evs-vs-gas-vehicles
Would you sleep well with a charging EV in an attached garage?
Have a look upthread at the figures I quoted for London 2019 (mainly because those were the latest easily obtainable figures I could find) – you are at least 4.5 times more likely to have a fire in an EV as in an ICE vehicle, and the figures don’t show the deliberate arson of ICE vehicles (which is, apparently, significant with ICE vehicles but negligible to non-existent with EV’s).
Its worse than that. I don’t have the figures for London, but in the US an EV is driven an average of 5,000 miles a year, and an ICE averages 15,000 miles per year. Assuming it’s the same for London, (and maybe it isn’t), add that to your data, and the EV is 13.5 times as likely to have a fire.
Don’t forget to average in the fact that on average, EV’s are much younger than ICE vehicles.
Given the fact that electrics are all short trip vehicles, I find it hard to believe this claim.
Do you want to build your opinion on anecdotes and myths, or on statistical facts?
The facts show that for for combustion cars there is one fire per 19 million miles travelled.
For Tesla there is one per 205 million miles travelled. That is 11 times less.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1133254_fires-are-less-frequent-in-teslas-and-other-evs-vs-gas-vehicles
That is a meaningless number when you consider that there are only several million EVs at the most on the road. That is versus around 290 million total vehicles in the US. Also of some importance is that EVs are not going to drive as many miles on average versus ICE vehicles.
The data are per mile driven.
Which is the wrong metric. The relevant metric is fires per hours parked and/or fires per minutes refueling.
Seriousely, nobody have data for those metrics.
And why would anybody need it. It is a far more dramatic situation if the car catches fire when you drive, than when it is parked.
The bottom line from the statistics is that fires in electric cars are rare, and when they burn it is usually fire in the ordinary interior, just like in other cars. Battery fires are very rare.
I’m waiting for a report from a reputable agency.
A group dedicated to pushing EV’s is not credible.
Outdated.
he Chinese have significantly improved the battery technology.
The Lithium Iron-Phospahate blade batteries produced by BYD are safe and do not catch fire
https://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/byd-blade-battery-set-to-revolutionise-ev-market/
If this takes off, and if the other posters about fire incidence are right, this invalidates one of my arguments. If these posts are right, we are moving to a low fire risk battery.
But the other two remain intact. There is the length of time to refuel, and there is the cost. Even if they are equal as regards fire risks, you still have these problems, and they do mean that moving to EV even with LIP batteries will require dramatically reducing the number of cars, and thus will require the collateral changes, and these will be huge.
Everyone knows that data from China are always 100% accurate.
“… lithium iron phosphate cathodes [ ] are less prone to catching fire, but are not able to store as much energy as standard cells that use nickel cobalt manganese cathodes.
Others including GM are testing different chemistries … .”
(Source: liability insurance industry publication:
https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2021/08/24/305598.htm )
2. I found one manufacturer (which, like all the solar and wind and other “green” scammers, relies on taxpayers to break even on its costs of production/maintenance) who might (not yet committed) use it in its “lower end” vehicle(s) — vehicles for people who don’t care about having much range.
This is the state of the industry as of 5 days ago. Not outdated.
Bottom line: fire risk (i.e., anomalously difficult to extinguish) in EV’s is still high.
Yes, the problem is energy density. Even though lithium batteries are considerably less dense in energy than gasoline, they are still containing a huge amount in a limited space, so safety and stability are bound to be issues. And because there are at the moment so many ICE vehicles on the roads, just replacing them with vehicles which have a higher spontaneous combustion rate, whether its in storage or when being refuelled, has the potential to lead to a very large number of accidents.
It looks like no-one has done any serious analysis of the project to replace all ICE cars with EVs. At the very least it will have to lead to considerable changes in how we use them – how we park, how we store, how we refuel.
Then the cost factor will also affect takeup. A large proportion of current car owners will just not be able to afford EVs.
There are two ways of handling this. The first way is by approval standards. It would be possible to only license cars for sale if, for instance, their spontaneous combustion rate is the same as that of ICE vehicles, and that they must have similar rapid extinguishing when they occur, by whatever means. This would reduce the number of EVs to a small fraction of the current base of ICE cars.
The second way is to come clean about it. Just admit that the objective implies reducing the number of cars on the road by 80% or so. Then take the associated measures, road closures to make space for walking, bikes and public transport, bike parking places at destinations, movement of the facilities people are travelling to, so that shopping and working becomes local. Probably moving huge numbers of people into high density housing in cities.
In this scenario cars would be fairly rare, and they would be short range medium distance luxuries. Most of the time people would take public transport. Think how life used to be in about 1930 or even earlier, maybe pre-WWI.
What its clearly impossible to do is pretend that everything can carry on as normal, just with EVs substituting for ICE. The fire risk is completely different, the refuelling time is hugely longer, the range is less, the performance in winter is far worse. It is not going to work.
Given this, the move to EVs, or rather, away from ICE, is impossible without making lots of other changes to social life. Governments need to start being honest about this. The Greens too….
Born in the 1950’s in central England, only one family owned a car in the whole street where I lived. It was normal to go by bus, walk or cycle. My father was a firefighter or a fireman as we said in those days.
All jobs to be had, had to be reached by the above methods. It was normal.
Today, we live where we want and work where we want. For many, that involves a long commute.
To try to recreate a no car society would cause such upheaval that there would be fighting on the streets, once the public understands the implications.
Yes, and in those neighborhoods, destinations were within walking distance. Today, gigantic box stores have put neighborhood store out-of-business, and the distances are much greater.
Yes. There was a commuter belt served by suburban railways, around London especially, and people took the trains into the City. But for most people it was get a job within reach, and do your shopping locally. Walk or bike to school, also.
A lot of class rigidity. You had a lot less choice of work.
This is the real implication of the Green agenda, though no-one is honest enough to admit it.
How come I am getting moronic Greenpeace ads nonstop on WUWT….Promoting Some idiot that thinks he is going to get on the board of AGL a major Australian energy company and stop how they run the company….
I have an adblocker, and I only have one non-invasive ad, for the 14TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE with the Heartland Institute, which I don’t mind at all. Oh, and the request to donate to WUWT. Might want to try that route.
Did safety regulatory agencies just turn a blind eye? Or?
For every 1kwh of electricity stored, it is equivalent to storing 1kG of TNT.
Excerpt from my article
UNDERSTATING CO2 EMISSIONS PER KILOWATT-HOUR TO HYPE EVs AND HEAT PUMPS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governments-play-deceptive-games-with-co2-emissions
THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.
He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89
He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts
He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.
The battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging. See Note
Li-ions (pos.) would plate out on the cathode (neg) each time when charging from 80 to 100%.
Li-ions would plate out on the anode (pos) each time when charging from 10% to 20%, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.
Fire: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s Tucker Hill Road home around 9 AM Thursday.
Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:
1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle
2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”.
https://www.vnews.com/Firefighters-put-out-blaze-in-car-of-Vt-State-Representative-41272606
https://www.engadget.com/gm-chevy-bolt-fire-warning-215322969.html
https://electrek.co/2020/11/13/gm-recall-chevy-bolt-evs-potential-fire-risk/
GM Recall of Chevy Bolts: In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.
GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.
https://insideevs.com/news/524712/chevrolet-bolt-battery-recall-cost/
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/568817-gm-expands-bolt-ev-recall-to-include-73000-more-vehicles
Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!
Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage.
NOTE:
– Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle
https://insideevs.com/news/492167/reports-lg-chem-cost-hyundai-battery-recall/
– EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range
– Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge, 1) uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and 2) is detrimental to the battery. Also, it requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.
– EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-does-lithium-ion-battery-work
See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governments-play-deceptive-games-with-co2-emissions
There is a 60,000 foot battery recycle plant being built in the center of my small town that is projected to have a 100,000 ton yearly throughput. It is less than three football fields from a popular playground and skatepark. Over a hundred mobile homes, restaurants, churches, etc., are even closer. We’ll see how that goes.
more….
https://e-catworld.com/2021/08/29/synopsis-of-rossis-zero-point-energy-theory/
Rossi reports use of AI stabilized electrical production…
Next year?
And exactly how many EVs catch fire? This is just alarmism!
Same as ‘burning wind turbines’… a handful of the tens – hundreds – of thousands installed
Go look at the figures I posted earlier in the thread Griffy. I noticed you never bothered to bring figures that refute that? Is it because your position is based on insubstantial delusions and completely unsupportable by fact or truth?
Oh, and according to research done by Imperial College London, Edinburgh University and SP Technical Research Institute Sweden, wind turbine fires are THE major cause of failures. They noted, in the 200,000 turbines surveyed, an average of 117 fires annually. That is simply not a ‘handful’ Griffy – unless you’ve got some massive great mitts, that is. Once again, your position is shown to be based on delusions, easily refuted by facts.
And just to hammer that point home, Griffy – if we assume a lifetime of, say, 20 years and all the wind turbine fires are evenly distributed, then more than 1 in every 100 (86ish) wind turbines will catch fire at some point during its installed life. Are these facts too alarming for you?
Sit! Good boy, here’s a sausage.
/pats head/
inquiring minds want to know: I often do a quick search for Griff or Loydo to find out what the lower subspecies are thinking. Then I wondered, maybe WUWT are Griff and Loydo, and you use them as foils to, as Rush Limbaugh used to say, highlighting with ignorance. Keep up the good work.
Considering the level of ignorance shown, that’s some very high highlighting!
The air bag recalls have been going on since 2013 and they are still are not fixed.
You can not ship a coin size lithium ion battery (or larger) in a package that will go by air. And they still are not fixed. Years as a volunteer fireman and never went to a home fire that was started by the gasoline in the vehicle in the car in a garage.
Lithium Ion batteries are dangerous. Why would anyone want several hundred pounds of Lithium Ion batteries in there home, on a charger? while they sleep? Drive through a tunnel in one or behind one? All a fireman can do is watch and try to protect the structure which is a hopeless effort.
INSANE.
American Airlines had to do an emergency exit (sliders) this week due to a cell phone catching fire. No, the plane didn’t catch fire, but the cabin filled with (probably) toxic fumes, and the FAs decided to get everyone out immediately. But that plane was already on the tarmac. Imagine that happening mid flight. Again, just a little cell phone….
Lithium ion batteries have been combusting since they first came into use in laptops and cell phones. Apple computers burned down several homes as a result of their LiIon batteries burning. These problems have been greatly reduced, but there are still issues. Spare LiIon batteries are banned from checked baggage on commercial flights.
Lead acid batteries produce H2 when charging. Ventilation can handle the H2. This is an issue when recharging multiple lead acid batteries inside a building.
I do not understand why people choose LiIon batteries for large stationary battery installations. Lead acid batteries would be a more cost effective solution and the H2 produced during charging is easily solved. Lead acid batteries do not spontaneously combust.
Tesla fire had nothing to do with the battery. Photos after the fire showed front end burned battery pack undamaged.
Which Tesla fire? There have been several dozens.
I have been thinking about the implications if there is an electric vehicle fire on a ferry … my conclusion is that the ferry will inevitably burn.
The culprit in nearly all EV fire cases is the lithium-ion batteries that power them, and which burn with extraordinary ferocity. Adding to the fire and heat danger posed by these events is the extreme toxicity of the fumes generated. According to one study, these fumes may in some circumstances be a larger threat, especially in confined environments where people are present.
Since lithium-ion fires are a chemical reaction they can only be cooled not extinguished. They end up burning for several days in some cases. In Germany, damage to a parking structure was extensive. So, for this German parking structure, it has chosen to ban all electrified vehicles from parking underground. That includes hybrids, PHEV, and EVs, whether they contain lithium-ion or nickel-metal hydride batteries.
Another lithium battery fire-
Lithium battery on scooter starts house fire in Perth’s north (msn.com)
Maybe another edict to park them outside and away from the home?
That’s nonsense, plenty of ICE cars catch fire, 2019 Ireland. and I’m sure many thousands of cases like it throughout the world.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/up-to-60-cars-scorched-in-accidental-cork-car-park-blaze-1.4004015
That’s not the first instance of non accident related ICE fires.
I’ve also been driving EV since 2015 and have not had a single issue, while I don’t buy this climate change bullshit I don’t drive EV for environmental reasons, I drive EV because they save me a huge amount of money over ICE given the extortionate tax on liquid fuels here and because I like the way they drive.